Have a lovely day.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creation of Universe, Scriptures vs Science
- Thread starter Aupmanyav
- Start date
firedragon
Veteran Member
You too.
Is that record somewhere to be seen?
I don't think so. I think the need for writing would have come in much earlier than what we can see.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Why? You cannot seem to justify that belief.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Well I can only speak for myself of course, I don't find it unacceptable, I just find it unevidenced in any remotely objective way.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
Indeed. It is a myth based on earlier myths. It isn't a description of actual events.
And yet, some Christian apologists still insist that it is. Similarly there are still Muslim apologists claiming that he Quran contains miraculous scientific knowledge when it has repeatedly been demonstrated that it doesn't.
So whenever they bring it up, I will correct them
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
Sorry, but you seem somewhat confused. All those things have hard evidence to support them. Your Bronze Age superstitions have zero supporting evidence.
But I guess that delusion by indoctrination can be pretty hard to break.
Good job you aren't so dismissive of the scientific knowledge involved in the smartphone or computer you are using to post your bizarre comments, or transport or engineering or medicine, etc, etc... Or perhaps you believe all that stuff happens by magic as well?
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
Okaaay.... so you think that humans should have been able to invent everything as soon as evolved into humans?
Congratulations! You have taken the baffling misunderstanding of simple, scientific concepts to a new low. Are you from Mississippi?
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
It's quite a confession to admit that you are not now, and will never be interested in any evidence or rational argument that contradicts your belief.
I know it is a commonly held position amongst religionists and other ideologues, but most are reluctant to admit it in public.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
It's rather odd that you have the time to waste on meaningless exchanges such as this, yet you resolutely refuse to address specific points and questions I raise with you, regarding your own posts. It's almost as if deflection, distraction and red herrings are all you have. And that would be a terrible shame.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
It isn't "unacceptable", it is just very unlikely given everything we know about the universe and its contents.
What is unacceptable is the wilful rejection of evidence in favour of ancient superstition. It is understandable why some people hold those views, but that doesn't make it acceptable.
Think of it like a teacher being a little short with the child who, despite being capable of understanding it, simply refuses to do their homework, day after day and keeps claiming that they know more than the teacher.
Rather than repeat the same old arguments from personal incredulity, how about you explain how all those experts in their field got it wrong? Explain why there are practically no physicists, cosmologists, etc who believe that the universe must have had a conscious, supernatural creator. I'm not saying they must be right. They might all be wrong - clearly you believe they are wrong. I'm interested in your arguments for why they are wrong, and why they haven't spotted what you have.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
I will respond to this last point later on today, if I get time, because you have finally asked a question which warrants a thoughtful response. What I won’t be trying to do, is make an argument for God from physics, because one does not, in my experience, arrive at knowledge of God through intellectual exercise (but rather through prayer and meditation).
It may be possible for a better informed individual than myself to make such an argument, but if I attempt it I will meet with no more success than far greater minds have so far met with, in their search for a “theory of everything” which would finally reconcile quantum theory with general relativity.
I warn you I will probably quote Stephen Hawking again. I implore you on this occasion to read what he says and think about it’s implications, rather than simply dismissing his philosophical ruminations on the grounds of his later, stated atheism.
I will reiterate here and now, a point I’ve made elsewhere. The consensus among cosmologists is that the universe began in a singularity.
Anyway I will try to respond at greater length later.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
The problem here is the use of the term "knowledge". What you are actually talking about is an idea or belief, not knowledge.
At the risk of repeating myself, it is perfectly understandable why people hold these beliefs, but to attempt to justify them because they are beliefs is simply circular logic.
The actual question is - why is an explanation based on belief better than one based on evidence?
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Once again communication breaks down over a too literal interpretation of a word - in this case, knowledge. When religious people talk about knowing God, they generally mean it in the same sense as one might talk about knowing peace, knowing freedom, or knowing joy.
I have not attempted to justify or argue my belief in God based on evidence, logic or empiricism. Whether these tools have lead others to knowledge of God, I cannot say, but for me God consciousness is a tangible awareness of divine power, that comes from within. It’s not something arrived at through theory, analysis, or the evidence of the external senses, but rather through prayer and meditation. Willingness and open mindedness however, are also essential to this purpose.
I can understand that it took more than few ears, but it is difficult to believe it would have taken over hundred thousand of years.
Please tell, what is the ancient source of that information?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You need some reason. Not just vague handwaving.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
There are quite a few. I am sure that you are aware of the fact of how Christians love to cite Josephus as a source of evidence for the existence of Jesus. He has a much more through record of the Roman census that the author of Luke likely relied on. In case you forgot your Bible he was the one that mentioned the Census of Quirinius in his nativity myth.
Historians also know why there would have been no such census in the time of Herod. Judea was a client state under Herod. They paid tribute and not taxes. It was not until Herod's son failed that Rome had to take over. That was when they installed Quirinius as governor of Syria. It was then that he had to take a census so that, as the author of Luke actually got right. The census was done for taxation purposes. The author of Luke just screwed up when it was, and the idea that people would have had to go to their ancient homes.